rungavagairun He's an engineer, so he has a solid scientific education. I would argue that engineers are scientists in the same way that chemists, geologists, biologists, and physicists are scientists. The word scientist is a very general term describing a great number of fields. I would argue that engineering or at least certain branches of engineering would definitely fall into the category of science.
Engineers need an understanding of sciences in an applied sense, similar to practicing doctors. As a rule, they are not doing experiments to contribute to broaden general knowledge and overarching principles of one or more of the scientific fields/disciplines. There is likely some overlap as well. Just like some medical doctors are involved in research (they would be legitimate scientists in medicine), there are likely engineers who do research in the way I mentioned earlier. If the primary focus of the engineer is to develop a specific design for a commercial application and they are merely applying accepted scientific knowledge, they would not qualify as a scientist.
You are just wrong. But before I explain why, I should note that I am talking about engineers with a minimum of a BScE degree (Bachelor of Science in Engineering Degree), and more likely a Masters Degree. There are many trade professions that use the title of engineer such as power engineers, but they are technicians with tech school certifications or diplomas. I would not argue that they are scientists. I might also cede that engineers who have only a bachelors degree most times wouldn't be considered scientists, although I would argue that would depend on the specific nature of their job. Many engineers with bachelors degrees get into project management or manufacturing jobs which doesn't really make them scientists. But any engineer involved in research or whose job requires extensive knowledge of any of the scientific disciplines would be a scientist. Also an engineer with a Masters degree or PHD is most definitely a scientist in the truest sense of the word. Engineers specialize in the application of physics, chemistry, astrophysics, and quantum mechanics, not to mention many other scientific disciplines like geology, meteorology, and material science. Engineers involvement in cosmology and biology are admittedly less. Although bio-medical engineers likely have a significant background in biology. In order to apply the principles of those disciplines an engineer needs to have a comprehensive knowledge of those fields. Do you think chemical engineers are not versed in chemistry? Do you think Nasa's engineers are not versed in astrophysics? Do you think that the engineers who built the large hadron collider are not versed in quantum mechanics? Engineers are just scientist who specialize more the practical application of existing scientific theory, and less in the generation of new scientific theory.
It is so tiring to listen to people of no reason, but religion. Funny how they make attempts to talk science by using terms they do not understand and say there are holes in the theories. But they say nothing except things like "Oh, that's the Old Testament" "we don't believe that anymore" or "Jesus and the New Testament are the way", Funny how these same people who live in a world of holes then say things like to believe in science, you must have faith. In fact, they are trying to discredit science by saying that it is incomplete. Well, thanks to Religions, science is incomplete. It has taken thousands of years for science to be able to practice freely without the scientists being burned at the stake, boiled alive or put on a stretcher as Religions have made every attempt to keep us all from eating from the Tree of Knowledge that their very same books tells us not to eat from, because then we will not be so ignorant to follow the god ideals.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” ― Charles Darwin
"I don't anything until I investigate it, that is why I'm a scientist. You know everything before you investigate it, that is why you're a creationist." -Lawrence Krauss \
Krauss's frustration is the same kind that adults feel when they're trying to explain over and over again to a 5 year old that there aren't any monsters under the bed.
I imagine these people living in caves only to come out once a week to host these shows and troll the web for a few hours and then watch in awe as the Lord pulls back the sun to the invisible side of the dome past the edge of the earth.
Krauss is getting so mad... I just want to hug him and tell him that his words and the message of truth he promotes make a lot of people, including myself, proud to be alive.
creationist: "did you know there are 400 scientists who said there is a problem with evolution?" rational person: "did you know 400 scientists are about 0.0007% of the scientist population?"
And I disagree, for the same reason, most probably, that he does this kind of public appearances. Stupid and widely accepted lies were propagated and plague contemporary society just because scientists stood there in the background, not challenging the parts which were completely idiotic. And they did this trying to be respectful. It has to change, so that science facts take their place. Now we have hundred of millions of morons believing that the Earth is a few thousands years old. Sure, you can disagree on dating techniques, but they don't make mistakes of that order of magnitude and we have multiple ways of double checking and triple checking. Yet this guy still believes them and propagates those falsehoods. This is why respectable men need to reaffirm that the method is legit, that it is double checked by thousands of people over the course of many decades. We need people like him educating the wider public.
Its like this guy hears something that he thinks doesn't flow with current scientific thought and then goes, "God." What kind of fucked up logic is that? It isn't always fun but getting a wrong answer in science is exciting. It means there is an opportunity to gain new knowledge and understand things better. What a wonderful concept.
lol... I'm surprised Lawrence stayed on so long. I'm glad he didn't hang up so we could all listen to the frustration. I've had these kinds of arguments (though I'm no scientist).
If you spend you life working on something and working with others that are or have been just as dedicated. I would also be agitated, as Krauss was, when someone KNOWs that all my work and the work of my friends is completely wrong because of their delusion.
Lawrence is right in everything he says, I am pretty sure of that. However, he showed himself as too defensive and angry, and in some cases, I don't think he had a convincing answer (like the stuff about carbon dating). Also, he is not quite clear about 'authority': sometimes he complains about disregarding the work of all those scientists who try to understand the universe, at other times he says there is no authority in science. He is correct with the second one: all those scientists working their butts off in their labs can be wrong.
Defensive and angry? I'm _amazed_ at his composure. I would have hung up after only a handful of interruptions, or I would have raged so hard it would be intelligible over a phone line. Imagine you're trying to explain something that you know for a fact to be true, and that some guy keeps interrupting you by saying "But can you eat it with ketchup on?!" as if that was even remotely relevant. How long would you last? I know for a fact that I would not have lasted 40 minutes. Not even close. As for the authority in science... There is only one authority: Evidence. If you can't prove something with reasonable evidence, then you should go back to your laboratory and keep working on it. Dr. Krauss is completely free to refute any evidence he deems unreasonable. It all comes down to this: Who has the better, clearer and most reproducible evidence? Well, not me, that's for sure. I'm a computer programmer, and couldn't measure the cosmic background radiation for myself even if I had the equipment to do so. "What do you mean '5'? 5 what?"
Ugh! That was painful to listen to. I can understand the frustration in Lawrence's tone of voice. This host just had so many factual errors and defended the errors with such specious irrelevant arguments. Hats off to Lawrence for being able to even sit there and tolerate it without reaching through the phone and shaking the stupid out of him.
"We mentioned 100 inventions on this show, and none of them required Darwinism to be true." Can somebody please bring me an ice pack? I think I just broke my nose facepalming.
This is such a perfect metaphor. The creationists can sometimes be so frustrating (as evident here) because they love to jump from argument to argument to argument as each of them get shot down. Unfortunately for most of us, we're NOT experts in everything, and the very second they get a pause from us, they declare VICTORY! It's nice to see Krauss shoot down Every. Single. One. of them. Nice indeed.
The problem with arguments between creationists and sciencists, is neither will ever convince the other of anything. It's all about what they value in an argument. Scientists value evidence, logic and reason to sway them. Creationists value authority. So, even though they can both be seemingly intellegent individuals, when one presents a reasonable, testable, logical answer and the other says "I don't believe you because someone told me something different", there is no chance of settlement
I agree. My point is also that there's an asymmetry in any debate between a creationist and a scientist which is down to the fact that scientists spend their professional careers being scrupulously honest with themselves, hedging their bets and being exquisitely careful not to say anything that might make them look silly, whilst creationists spend their professional careers lying to people. In any unregulated public exchange this immediately handicaps the scientist and empowers the creationist.
I don't understand how your statement relates to the quote you give. The quote addresses ideas about the origin of life (for which there is not yet an established scientific theory). Your follow up statement is about the theory of evolution which explains the diversity of life, but has nothing to do with how it all got started. Can you elaborate?
Poor Dr. Krauss, having to put up with this kind of nonsense. At least he can get a little bit of comfort from the fact that he wiped the floor with this guy. Thanks for posting!
Very true, and it's not even a small threat. I myself bought into that line of reasoning relatively recently. It's extraordinarily pervasive. Damn, I'm glad that I got better.
Lawrence Krauss should have followed Mark Twain's advice " Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level ...and they beat you with experience"
More likely the station has what's called a compressor set up for any time the DJ talks vs whatever other audio is feeding through the line. (The local NPR station has one like this so if music is playing in the background and the DJ/Announcer starts talking the music drops back automatically so you can hear him better.) But the end result is as you say it is. It gives the DJ the appearance of sound more authoritative so the person calling on the phone always has the uphill battle.
Hey guys, I was a Christian all my life until about February 6th, 2013 where I sayed goodbye to my only father, the heavenly one, the only one I THOUGHT I had, as I did not have a father. I am really sorry for this disrespectful pastor, accusing Lawrence Krauss for lying and twisting his own research! I am deeply sorry.... I look back & remember arguing with my Science teachers, waving my Bible in class. I'm sorry! The same commitment I gave to my faith, I now give to science!
If challenged in such a way, my response is usually that I try to withhold belief in things for which I do not have enough evidence, because I care about what's true and I'd rather believe in as few false things as possible. This is NOT a claim that deities do not exist. Explain that to them. Do not shy away from a term because it is misunderstood; you fight misunderstanding by using it correctly. Language evolves and the meaning of "atheist" will change if you stop using it correctly.
Damn, that was painful. It's why I don't debate or even talk to creationists. Through quote mining and miscontextualizing, cherry-picking facts that suit their narrative or through outright lying and creating straw man fallacies they define their god into existence. And you know what? Even if it somehow proved the existence of a god, how could it prove it was the eye in the sky god who cares who you sleep with and in which position and who will punish you eternally if you do it wrong?
Can someone please correct me if I am wrong? I swear I just heard this host criticize Dr Krauss for talking about applied science and than make an explicit appeal to applied science.
Thats right! In 1959 ( mid-cold war) the U.S. was the number one leading country on science and technology level. At present, they are at rank 28 and still dropping...
"I don't know anything until I investigate it - that's why I'm a scientist. You know everything before you investigate it, and that's why you're a creationist." Bingo. The creationist twists facts to fit theories, and the scientist modifies theories to fit the facts.
Was it just me or did it sound like there was some radio producer turning down Krauss's volume when he's kicking the host's ass? Either way it was really annoying.
"If you want to take polls of people, you're going to find out the most ridiculous nonsense is believed by many people." ~ Krauss Krauss got that one right. Just look at the past US election to prove that theory correct.
I would like to meet Laurence one day so I could ask him some stupid questions. For instance, I'd like to know if its possible for one end of a wormhole to connect directly to a black hole, thereby allowing some information contained within to escape.
Hello, I'm a host of a radio show and I'm not a man who is a professional cosmologist nor a professional physicist but I can tell a leading physicist "That's not true..." - How incredulous can a person be?
Host to Julien: Julien, Julien, Julien....I have a poll that show 60 percent of gardeners, they arent geologists, but theyre doing applied science, they say there was no moon landing. Those rocks were clearly labeled as props.
Difference between scientists and creationists- Krauss - I don't know xyz until I study it, I could be wrong Creationist - I know everything, you're wrong, science is wrong, evidence is wrong
How so? Evolution is defined as "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." Is my layman's terms post inconsistent somehow with this?
@ 4:15 this guy is quoting from a magazine article from 22 years ago, doesn't he think maybe the studies may have been falsified or amended since then?
“We have talked about 100 inventions that don’t require evolution.” Congratulations. Of the billions of human inventions you’ve managed to find 100 that don’t require a modern understanding of biology. Ever heard of penicillin?
Dawkins did NOT say that he believed in panspermia. When Ben Stein asked about how inteligent design could have played a role in the origin of life on earth, Dawkins replied "It could have come about in the following way..." He then talked about the idea of alien life initiating life on earth but ultimately the original life form had to evolve from non-life. He wasn't advocating panspermia only saying that it was the only way life could have been inteligently started here.
microevolution is a term invented by creationists because they don't want to admit that evolution is real. So creationists invented microevolution to try to limit what they would allow evolution to explain.
So you have what seems like a dilemma to you, then you make something up with the characteristics that solve that dilemma without realizing that you have gotten rid of the need for the thing you made up,as soon as you made it up. You think anything as big & complex as a universe MUST have a creator, so you invent something even bigger and more complex and say it doesn't need one. Therefore, big complex things don't need creators, and your god is no longer required.
i like it how this guy is using arguments from authority or popularity, so krauss shows why it's stupid and does it in a mirror affect for satiracle and even educational purposes, and then the creationist says... i believe you. well if you believe him, why on earth would you use it in the first place? who cares if people are religious, it doesn't make evolution wrong... who cares if someone doesn't think the big bang is true or there has to be a creator. if they don't show their side, it's just shit evidence. this guy ran away from krauss, and then ignored him...
Lawrence Krauss is a wonderful scientist and honest proponent for science and humanity. Far more open minded than the interviewer. Lawrence explained while the interviewer used false arguments (god of the gaps, authority, popular).
Wow. Did he just say Krauss basically falsified data so that it would agree with his hypothesis? Wow. That's like telling a musician that the song he wrote was really written by somebody else. That's terrible.
At the most basic level, the discoveries of the universe and physics usually involve gravity and/or special relativity. If somebody like this radio host can dismiss those discoveries, how can he claim he believes in gravity or special relativity to conduct a phone interview broadcast over radio waves?
Laurence Krauss' publicist probably gave him the thumbs up for this interview, because he thought, "Well, he said he'd promote your book, so it shouldn't be time wasted." - Well, it was time wasted.
How does someone muster up the arrogance to argue with Lawrence Fucking Krauss on matters that one of the greatest minds on the planet has spent his life studying? Astonishing!
This goes to show you how far you can get with "research" on the creationist side. As frustrating as listening to this talk show host, it really shows how lacking they are. They just don't know how to think.
Evolution doesn't state we evolved from rocks. It states that pebble dash (i can do your whole house for three large) evolved from rocks but people evolved from single cell organisms.
I didn't know the NT said that you could falsify Christianity. I thought it said that man was without excuse if he didn't believe in a blood sacrifice - or something to that effect.
Krauss isn't my favorite atheist debater, but he rocks this interview.
Carlos Long I guess it depends on the nature of the debate. Krause is a scientist. Nye is a science communicator, not a scientist himself.
rungavagairun
He's an engineer, so he has a solid scientific education. I would argue that engineers are scientists in the same way that chemists, geologists, biologists, and physicists are scientists. The word scientist is a very general term describing a great number of fields. I would argue that engineering or at least certain branches of engineering would definitely fall into the category of science.
Engineers need an understanding of sciences in an applied sense, similar to practicing doctors. As a rule, they are not doing experiments to contribute to broaden general knowledge and overarching principles of one or more of the scientific fields/disciplines.
There is likely some overlap as well. Just like some medical doctors are involved in research (they would be legitimate scientists in medicine), there are likely engineers who do research in the way I mentioned earlier.
If the primary focus of the engineer is to develop a specific design for a commercial application and they are merely applying accepted scientific knowledge, they would not qualify as a scientist.
You are just wrong. But before I explain why, I should note that I am talking about engineers with a minimum of a BScE degree (Bachelor of Science in Engineering Degree), and more likely a Masters Degree. There are many trade professions that use the title of engineer such as power engineers, but they are technicians with tech school certifications or diplomas. I would not argue that they are scientists. I might also cede that engineers who have only a bachelors degree most times wouldn't be considered scientists, although I would argue that would depend on the specific nature of their job. Many engineers with bachelors degrees get into project management or manufacturing jobs which doesn't really make them scientists. But any engineer involved in research or whose job requires extensive knowledge of any of the scientific disciplines would be a scientist.
Also an engineer with a Masters degree or PHD is most definitely a scientist in the truest sense of the word.
Engineers specialize in the application of physics, chemistry, astrophysics, and quantum mechanics, not to mention many other scientific disciplines like geology, meteorology, and material science. Engineers involvement in cosmology and biology are admittedly less. Although bio-medical engineers likely have a significant background in biology.
In order to apply the principles of those disciplines an engineer needs to have a comprehensive knowledge of those fields. Do you think chemical engineers are not versed in chemistry? Do you think Nasa's engineers are not versed in astrophysics? Do you think that the engineers who built the large hadron collider are not versed in quantum mechanics?
Engineers are just scientist who specialize more the practical application
of existing scientific theory, and less in the generation of new scientific theory.
Is a practicing doctor a scientist?
It is so tiring to listen to people of no reason, but religion. Funny how they make attempts to talk science by using terms they do not understand and say there are holes in the theories. But they say nothing except things like "Oh, that's the Old Testament" "we don't believe that anymore" or "Jesus and the New Testament are the way", Funny how these same people who live in a world of holes then say things like to believe in science, you must have faith. In fact, they are trying to discredit science by saying that it is incomplete. Well, thanks to Religions, science is incomplete. It has taken thousands of years for science to be able to practice freely without the scientists being burned at the stake, boiled alive or put on a stretcher as Religions have made every attempt to keep us all from eating from the Tree of Knowledge that their very same books tells us not to eat from, because then we will not be so ignorant to follow the god ideals.
I signed a napkin that said we live in the matrix. Checkmate.
Krauss, absolutely smashes this guy. It's hilarious listening to a creationist throw bad science at one of the world's most preeminent scientists.
Total waste of Dr Krauss's time.
I hope Dr. Krauss was paid well to put up with the sheer volume of inanities from this radio host.
lol if your going to try and discredit or disprove Krauss you should def not go about it using physics not many know more about that than him.
Blind faith invites insanity.
It's hilarious how Krauss can say "No, I predicted that. You can't blame a dead guy. I did that."
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
― Charles Darwin
This is a perfect example of the old saying, "A little bit of knowledge is dangerous."
It would've been nice for Lawrence to have remained a little calmer, although I understand his frustration. This host was... something.
I'm a Christian, I study evolutionary biology at my university and I LOVE the way Lawrence defends science.
"I don't anything until I investigate it, that is why I'm a scientist. You know everything before you investigate it, that is why you're a creationist."
-Lawrence Krauss
\
The more I hear Dr. Krauss speak, the more I respect him.
Krauss's frustration is the same kind that adults feel when they're trying to explain over and over again to a 5 year old that there aren't any monsters under the bed.
Krauss was addressing the interviewers science gaffs one at a time without letting the interviewer move on when he was proven wrong.
i have been driving cars for over 20 years 6 days a week , so hand me a toolbox, i will fix the engine
I imagine these people living in caves only to come out once a week to host these shows and troll the web for a few hours and then watch in awe as the Lord pulls back the sun to the invisible side of the dome past the edge of the earth.
Lawrence Kraus to Nutty creationists interviewer: "Everything you said is wrong" That is the understatement of the day.
Krauss is getting so mad... I just want to hug him and tell him that his words and the message of truth he promotes make a lot of people, including myself, proud to be alive.
thanks for the upload bro, boiled my blood, never heard Lawrence Krauss before but I like to hear him yell at this fool!
For the record, it was "baryon-photon" ratio.
Baryons are things made of three quarks such as the neutrons and protons.
creationist: "did you know there are 400 scientists who said there is a problem with evolution?"
rational person: "did you know 400 scientists are about 0.0007% of the scientist population?"
I think Dr. Krauss should not talk to people like this ignorant radio-host...
And I disagree, for the same reason, most probably, that he does this kind of public appearances. Stupid and widely accepted lies were propagated and plague contemporary society just because scientists stood there in the background, not challenging the parts which were completely idiotic. And they did this trying to be respectful. It has to change, so that science facts take their place.
Now we have hundred of millions of morons believing that the Earth is a few thousands years old. Sure, you can disagree on dating techniques, but they don't make mistakes of that order of magnitude and we have multiple ways of double checking and triple checking. Yet this guy still believes them and propagates those falsehoods. This is why respectable men need to reaffirm that the method is legit, that it is double checked by thousands of people over the course of many decades. We need people like him educating the wider public.
Holy shit, listening to this host was an excruciating experience.
Its like this guy hears something that he thinks doesn't flow with current scientific thought and then goes, "God." What kind of fucked up logic is that? It isn't always fun but getting a wrong answer in science is exciting. It means there is an opportunity to gain new knowledge and understand things better. What a wonderful concept.
The probability for the existence of God is inversely proportional to the volume of the known universe.
Interviewer: "I cant speak to what you've just said"
Krauss: "Of course, you can't."
4:50
lol... I'm surprised Lawrence stayed on so long. I'm glad he didn't hang up so we could all listen to the frustration. I've had these kinds of arguments (though I'm no scientist).
I don't know how Krauss managed to stay on the phone all that time.
The creationist knows his job well...promptly changing the subject each time he's up on the ropes.
If you spend you life working on something and working with others that are or have been just as dedicated. I would also be agitated, as Krauss was, when someone KNOWs that all my work and the work of my friends is completely wrong because of their delusion.
Lawrence is right in everything he says, I am pretty sure of that. However, he showed himself as too defensive and angry, and in some cases, I don't think he had a convincing answer (like the stuff about carbon dating). Also, he is not quite clear about 'authority': sometimes he complains about disregarding the work of all those scientists who try to understand the universe, at other times he says there is no authority in science. He is correct with the second one: all those scientists working their butts off in their labs can be wrong.
Defensive and angry? I'm _amazed_ at his composure. I would have hung up after only a handful of interruptions, or I would have raged so hard it would be intelligible over a phone line.
Imagine you're trying to explain something that you know for a fact to be true, and that some guy keeps interrupting you by saying "But can you eat it with ketchup on?!" as if that was even remotely relevant.
How long would you last? I know for a fact that I would not have lasted 40 minutes. Not even close.
As for the authority in science... There is only one authority: Evidence.
If you can't prove something with reasonable evidence, then you should go back to your laboratory and keep working on it.
Dr. Krauss is completely free to refute any evidence he deems unreasonable. It all comes down to this: Who has the better, clearer and most reproducible evidence?
Well, not me, that's for sure. I'm a computer programmer, and couldn't measure the cosmic background radiation for myself even if I had the equipment to do so.
"What do you mean '5'? 5 what?"
Ugh! That was painful to listen to. I can understand the frustration in Lawrence's tone of voice. This host just had so many factual errors and defended the errors with such specious irrelevant arguments. Hats off to Lawrence for being able to even sit there and tolerate it without reaching through the phone and shaking the stupid out of him.
That was the biggest laugh I've had since Prof.Dawkins on QandA Australia.
Nice Dr.Krauss, nice.
"We mentioned 100 inventions on this show, and none of them required Darwinism to be true."
Can somebody please bring me an ice pack? I think I just broke my nose facepalming.
"No, so far everything you've said is wrong." lol
This is such a perfect metaphor. The creationists can sometimes be so frustrating (as evident here) because they love to jump from argument to argument to argument as each of them get shot down. Unfortunately for most of us, we're NOT experts in everything, and the very second they get a pause from us, they declare VICTORY!
It's nice to see Krauss shoot down Every. Single. One. of them. Nice indeed.
Being around religious people is like being in a car full of drunks and no one will let you drive
"Do you know that you don't need a god for our origins?" "Absolutely not."
*Mr. Burns' evil fingers* Excellent.
The problem with arguments between creationists and sciencists, is neither will ever convince the other of anything. It's all about what they value in an argument. Scientists value evidence, logic and reason to sway them. Creationists value authority. So, even though they can both be seemingly intellegent individuals, when one presents a reasonable, testable, logical answer and the other says "I don't believe you because someone told me something different", there is no chance of settlement
I agree.
My point is also that there's an asymmetry in any debate between a creationist and a scientist which is down to the fact that scientists spend their professional careers being scrupulously honest with themselves, hedging their bets and being exquisitely careful not to say anything that might make them look silly, whilst creationists spend their professional careers lying to people. In any unregulated public exchange this immediately handicaps the scientist and empowers the creationist.
Oh dear me, as is repeatedly demonstrated, the science works! That's why people accept it.
I don't understand how your statement relates to the quote you give. The quote addresses ideas about the origin of life (for which there is not yet an established scientific theory). Your follow up statement is about the theory of evolution which explains the diversity of life, but has nothing to do with how it all got started. Can you elaborate?
thanks very much for sharing these videos, really appreciate it, cheers
|Fudging data is his bread and butter.|
Truer words are rarely spoken.
Poor Dr. Krauss, having to put up with this kind of nonsense. At least he can get a little bit of comfort from the fact that he wiped the floor with this guy. Thanks for posting!
Very true, and it's not even a small threat. I myself bought into that line of reasoning relatively recently. It's extraordinarily pervasive. Damn, I'm glad that I got better.
I see why he's such good friends with Dawkins.
Lawrence Krauss should have followed Mark Twain's advice " Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level ...and they beat you with experience"
This creationist is getting his but kicked by a real scientist!
I am loving this.
More likely the station has what's called a compressor set up for any time the DJ talks vs whatever other audio is feeding through the line. (The local NPR station has one like this so if music is playing in the background and the DJ/Announcer starts talking the music drops back automatically so you can hear him better.) But the end result is as you say it is. It gives the DJ the appearance of sound more authoritative so the person calling on the phone always has the uphill battle.
Hey guys, I was a Christian all my life until about February 6th, 2013 where I sayed goodbye to my only father, the heavenly one, the only one I THOUGHT I had, as I did not have a father.
I am really sorry for this disrespectful pastor, accusing Lawrence Krauss for lying and twisting his own research! I am deeply sorry....
I look back & remember arguing with my Science teachers, waving my Bible in class. I'm sorry! The same commitment I gave to my faith, I now give to science!
I've never heard Lawrence so frustrated... I imagined the interviewer as Ben Stein: Lawrence, Lawrence, Lawrence.
If challenged in such a way, my response is usually that I try to withhold belief in things for which I do not have enough evidence, because I care about what's true and I'd rather believe in as few false things as possible. This is NOT a claim that deities do not exist. Explain that to them. Do not shy away from a term because it is misunderstood; you fight misunderstanding by using it correctly. Language evolves and the meaning of "atheist" will change if you stop using it correctly.
Damn, that was painful. It's why I don't debate or even talk to creationists. Through quote mining and miscontextualizing, cherry-picking facts that suit their narrative or through outright lying and creating straw man fallacies they define their god into existence. And you know what? Even if it somehow proved the existence of a god, how could it prove it was the eye in the sky god who cares who you sleep with and in which position and who will punish you eternally if you do it wrong?
Can someone please correct me if I am wrong? I swear I just heard this host criticize Dr Krauss for talking about applied science and than make an explicit appeal to applied science.
its a shame that there isn't. It sucks that Ernst Mayr wasn't eligible to receive a nobel prize.
"My claims of brand new science and quote mines from scientists speaking about different topics, trumps your life's work Krauss!"
Sadly, I'm never blown away by it... I've just come to expect it.
I'm a pretty tolerant guy, but everytime that radio interviewer added another strawman argument I actually groaned.
"I really appreciate it" - Got his sounds bite.
Thats right! In 1959 ( mid-cold war) the U.S. was the number one leading country on science and technology level. At present, they are at rank 28 and still dropping...
"Lawrence? Lawrence? Lawrence?" This host is living evidence against intelligent design.
I had an image in my mind of Krauss dressed as Gordon Freeman beating the interviewer to death with a crowbar...
That was extremely painful. If I was in the same room with that guy, I'd just have to clock him.
2:28 Gravity is a "rescue device" to avoid the problem of unexplained fact that things fall down.
Just because you can read scientific text, dosent mean you understand it as much as a SCIENTIST!
Why appeal to authority of medical doctors in a debate about science, specifically astronomy and physics?
"I don't know anything until I investigate it - that's why I'm a scientist. You know everything before you investigate it, and that's why you're a creationist."
Bingo. The creationist twists facts to fit theories, and the scientist modifies theories to fit the facts.
I made a poll in which only atheists where asked if they believe in a God and 100% of them said no. Whats your response to that dear radio host?
Was it just me or did it sound like there was some radio producer turning down Krauss's volume when he's kicking the host's ass? Either way it was really annoying.
"If you want to take polls of people, you're going to find out the most ridiculous nonsense is believed by many people." ~ Krauss
Krauss got that one right. Just look at the past US election to prove that theory correct.
I would like to meet Laurence one day so I could ask him some stupid questions. For instance, I'd like to know if its possible for one end of a wormhole to connect directly to a black hole, thereby allowing some information contained within to escape.
Steven Colbert said it best when speaking of Bill O'Reilly: "There must be a God because I don't understand how stuff works."
Hello, I'm a host of a radio show and I'm not a man who is a professional cosmologist nor a professional physicist but I can tell a leading physicist "That's not true..." - How incredulous can a person be?
Host to Julien: Julien, Julien, Julien....I have a poll that show 60 percent of gardeners, they arent geologists, but theyre doing applied science, they say there was no moon landing. Those rocks were clearly labeled as props.
Difference between scientists and creationists- Krauss - I don't know xyz until I study it, I could be wrong
Creationist - I know everything, you're wrong, science is wrong, evidence is wrong
How so? Evolution is defined as "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." Is my layman's terms post inconsistent somehow with this?
@ 4:15 this guy is quoting from a magazine article from 22 years ago, doesn't he think maybe the studies may have been falsified or amended since then?
how does any of what the host says relate to the biblical account or any other religious accounts of creation
“We have talked about 100 inventions that don’t require evolution.”
Congratulations. Of the billions of human inventions you’ve managed to find 100 that don’t require a modern understanding of biology. Ever heard of penicillin?
Dawkins did NOT say that he believed in panspermia. When Ben Stein asked about how inteligent design could have played a role in the origin of life on earth, Dawkins replied "It could have come about in the following way..." He then talked about the idea of alien life initiating life on earth but ultimately the original life form had to evolve from non-life. He wasn't advocating panspermia only saying that it was the only way life could have been inteligently started here.
Talking nonsense and thus annoying your opponent to the point of losing his cool isn't the same as winning the debate.
The host of this show has me convinced that the religious would not survive without scientists.
He said do science! Ahhh, I love Krauss!
microevolution is a term invented by creationists because they don't want to admit that evolution is real. So creationists invented microevolution to try to limit what they would allow evolution to explain.
Its not arrogance when one is correct.
So you have what seems like a dilemma to you, then you make something up with the characteristics that solve that dilemma without realizing that you have gotten rid of the need for the thing you made up,as soon as you made it up. You think anything as big & complex as a universe MUST have a creator, so you invent something even bigger and more complex and say it doesn't need one. Therefore, big complex things don't need creators, and your god is no longer required.
i like it how this guy is using arguments from authority or popularity, so krauss shows why it's stupid and does it in a mirror affect for satiracle and even educational purposes, and then the creationist says... i believe you.
well if you believe him, why on earth would you use it in the first place? who cares if people are religious, it doesn't make evolution wrong... who cares if someone doesn't think the big bang is true or there has to be a creator.
if they don't show their side, it's just shit evidence.
this guy ran away from krauss, and then ignored him...
Lawrence Krauss is a wonderful scientist and honest proponent for science and humanity. Far more open minded than the interviewer. Lawrence explained while the interviewer used false arguments (god of the gaps, authority, popular).
How someone can even think that earth is 6000 years old... It's impossible to argue with people like this?
Wow. Did he just say Krauss basically falsified data so that it would agree with his hypothesis? Wow. That's like telling a musician that the song he wrote was really written by somebody else. That's terrible.
At the most basic level, the discoveries of the universe and physics usually involve gravity and/or special relativity. If somebody like this radio host can dismiss those discoveries, how can he claim he believes in gravity or special relativity to conduct a phone interview broadcast over radio waves?
Laurence Krauss' publicist probably gave him the thumbs up for this interview, because he thought, "Well, he said he'd promote your book, so it shouldn't be time wasted." - Well, it was time wasted.
How does someone muster up the arrogance to argue with Lawrence Fucking Krauss on matters that one of the greatest minds on the planet has spent his life studying? Astonishing!
This goes to show you how far you can get with "research" on the creationist side. As frustrating as listening to this talk show host, it really shows how lacking they are. They just don't know how to think.
Evolution doesn't state we evolved from rocks. It states that pebble dash (i can do your whole house for three large) evolved from rocks but people evolved from single cell organisms.
I didn't know the NT said that you could falsify Christianity. I thought it said that man was without excuse if he didn't believe in a blood sacrifice - or something to that effect.